Estate of Dalenko v. File, No. 05-2223 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2223 ESTATE OF LOUIS DALENKO, by Personal Representative and Executrix; CAROL BENNETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus GILBERT W. FILE, IV, Wake Cty Clerks of Superior Court, and individually; ROBERT MONROE; LOU A. NEWMAN, Individually; CORINNE G. RUSSELL, Wake Cty Deputy Attorney; NARLY CASHWELL, Sr.; JOHN C. MARTIN, Justice of NC COA; SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR., Justice of NC COA; MARTHA A. GEER, Justice of NC COA; UNNAMED RESEARCH ASSISTANT, Each also in their individual capacities; WAKE COUNTY; NARLY L. CASHWELL; DONALD W. STEPHENS; HENRY W. HIGHT, JR., individually; JANET I. PUESCHEL; MICHAEL R. FERRELL, Wake Cty Attorney, and individually; HUGH STEVENS, d/b/a G,H&S Everett, individually; EVERETT, GASKINS, HANCOCK & STEVENS, LLP; THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-550-5-H; CA-04-438-5-H; CA-04-811-5-H; CA04-301-5-H) Submitted: June 7, 2006 Decided: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. June 23, 2006 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Estate of Louis Dalenko; Carol Bennett, Appellants Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S. Parsons, Patricia Pursell Kerner, Hannah Gray Styron, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael R. Ferrell, Corinne Griffin Russell, COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF WAKE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Hugh Stevens, EVERETT, GASKINS, HANCOCK & STEVENS, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Carol Bennett and the Estate of Louis Dalenko appeal the district court s orders and judgments dismissing the complaints and sanctioning Bennett. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dalenko v. File, Nos. CA-03-550-5-H; CA- 04-301-5-H; CA-04-438-5-H; CA-04-811-5-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2004; Mar. 2, 2004; Dec. 21, 2004; Mar. 16, 2005; Aug. 26, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
